SRB Provision - St. Helen's RC Primary School

This tender exhibits significant weaknesses in data consistency, fairness, and sustainability, alongside moderate issues in legal compliance, clarity, completeness, and practicality. Key information, such as evaluation criteria and consistent timelines, is notably absent or conflicting.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code appropriately, and there are no reported disputes. However, the provided information lacks explicit details on mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements, which are fundamental for legal compliance. Furthermore, conflicting submission deadlines could lead to legal challenges regarding process integrity.

While the project description is generally clear, it heavily relies on external 'drawings and schedules of works' for full scope. A critical deficiency is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria, making it impossible for bidders to understand how their proposals will be judged. The AI-extracted requirements, though clearly phrased, highlight these missing crucial details.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, and location is present, and documents are listed. However, the tender is incomplete due to the explicit absence of evaluation criteria and detailed mandatory exclusion/eligibility criteria. The conflicting duration and submission dates also indicate a lack of complete and consistent information.

The tender's fairness is severely compromised by the absence of evaluation criteria, which prevents transparent and objective assessment of bids. The lack of electronic submission (e-submission) creates barriers to equal access for potential bidders. Additionally, conflicting submission deadlines introduce confusion and potential for unfairness in preparation.

The absence of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback, increasing administrative burden for all parties. While a contract start date is known and duration is specified (albeit inconsistently), the lack of e-submission hinders the efficiency and accessibility of the procurement process.

This tender suffers from severe data inconsistencies. There are conflicting submission deadlines (February 6th vs. January 30th) and conflicting contract durations (2 months vs. 5 weeks). The 'Liable Person' field is also empty. These inconsistencies create significant confusion and risk for bidders.

The tender documentation provides no indication of any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not identified as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. Consequently, the tender does not demonstrate any commitment to sustainability principles.